mpasi wrote:Starting to think an MBA would be a much, much better idea.

An MBA is only a good idea if you have business experience (not just work experience, real experience) and are willing to accept the uncertainty of the market. IMHO, people who don't want to study the law because they can't be 100% positive that they will be earning $160K RIGHT AFTER graduation will not fare any better with an MBA, and should spend a few more years working so that they can get a better idea about what they really want to do with their careers.

In fact, I would bet that new MBAs are doing even worse than new JDs in this economy. No degree is a surefire ticket to wealth, period. Graduate school is always a bad idea if you aren't sure about what you want from your education.

Also, these threads are started by unemployed JDs who are trying to scare kids away from law school because they don't like the competition. They don't care about you; they are trying to scare you away with horror stories because they want to limit the supply of lawyers so that they can continue to charge $500 to cut and paste information into a form document. Period.

I know you think you're helping, but you just come off as rude and bitter. I'm talking about the kind of law schools I could get into and whether there would be any legal job, six-figure or otherwise, waiting for me. I don't have to be rich, I just want to like my education and like the career I get into. An MBA, if I choose to pursue one, is years from now. I don't have the experience required just yet.

emhellmer wrote:Also, these threads are started by unemployed JDs who are trying to scare kids away from law school because they don't like the competition. They don't care about you; they are trying to scare you away with horror stories because they want to limit the supply of lawyers so that they can continue to charge $500 to cut and paste information into a form document. Period.

This does not describe Nightrunner at all.

Or the ABA members who authored and supported the report Nightrunner quoted...

Of course it does. Actually, the ABA members who authored the report were who I had in mind when I wrote the description. Yes, members of the American Bar Association (lawyers) want to artificially limit the supply of lawyers on the market so that they can continue to charge astronomical rates for services that others would be willing to provide at a fraction of the cost. Other posters have pointed out that the ABA should follow the model used by the AMA to limit the supply of doctors on the market, because they too want to ensure that they can charge astronomical rates for these services.

That is just...idk. I mean, if you're doing public interest, it's to be expected, but for mid to big law, that is beyond pathetic. Maybe WE will help them get better paying jobs. A family friend recently told me not to drop the idea of going to law school because the new associates at her firm (she's a notary) make six figures. I don't think she knows how bad things are right now.

That is just...idk. I mean, if you're doing public interest, it's to be expected, but for mid to big law, that is beyond pathetic. Maybe WE will help them get better paying jobs. A family friend recently told me not to drop the idea of going to law school because the new associates at her firm (she's a notary) make six figures. I don't think she knows how bad things are right now.

The sad thing is that I did not make that up. I had a family friend recently give me some sort of psychoanalysis against my will and I think she thought I was silly for waiting til next cycle. They just don't know the situation. I would rather work as a junior manager at the mall than go to a crappy school and be 100k in debt and unemployed

She also told me I should go backpacking in Europe instead of working for a shitty law firm for WE during my time off

mpasi wrote:Starting to think an MBA would be a much, much better idea.

I know you think you're helping, but you just come off as rude and bitter. I'm talking about the kind of law schools I could get into and whether there would be any legal job, six-figure or otherwise, waiting for me. I don't have to be rich, I just want to like my education and like the career I get into. An MBA, if I choose to pursue one, is years from now. I don't have the experience required just yet.

I'm not trying to be rude, I apologize. I'm not bitter, I'm just tired of hearing that a JD should entitle one to ANYTHING. It doesn't, there is no certainty, and I am giving up my current career in order to go into more debt and not be assured of ANYTHING (but being overqualified for the job I have now). Oh, but I'm only going for scholarships, to hell with prestige. These risks are part of following any dream.

I have read so many blogs, threads, etc. on the internet from JDs who are alarmed at the falling cost of legal services, etc. I have reached a point where I think "did you honestly think that a degree alone would guarantee you against ever having to struggle financially?" Well, yes, yes they did. And it is a shame that they took out $200K in debt, but it has a ring of entitlement about it that has started to annoy the heck out of me. So once again, apologies.

mpasi wrote:Starting to think an MBA would be a much, much better idea.

An MBA is only a good idea if you have business experience (not just work experience, real experience) and are willing to accept the uncertainty of the market. IMHO, people who don't want to study the law because they can't be 100% positive that they will be earning $160K RIGHT AFTER graduation will not fare any better with an MBA, and should spend a few more years working so that they can get a better idea about what they really want to do with their careers.

...

Not to hijack, but this isn't necessarily true. Real (as in career-type) experience, perhaps, but it doesn't have to be business experience. When I [briefly] supported the M&A group of a major bank, one of the associates I was friends with has an undergrad degree in computer programming and worked as a programmer before getting his MBA from Wharton. An MBA can be used for a career change, but in most cases you'll need a career first.

emhellmer wrote:I'm not trying to be rude, I apologize. I'm not bitter, I'm just tired of hearing that a JD should entitle one to ANYTHING. It doesn't, there is no certainty, and I am giving up my current career in order to go into more debt and not be assured of ANYTHING (but being overqualified for the job I have now). Oh, but I'm only going for scholarships, to hell with prestige. These risks are part of following any dream.

I have read so many blogs, threads, etc. on the internet from JDs who are alarmed at the falling cost of legal services, etc. I have reached a point where I think "did you honestly think that a degree alone would guarantee you against ever having to struggle financially?" Well, yes, yes they did. And it is a shame that they took out $200K in debt, but it has a ring of entitlement about it that has started to annoy the heck out of me. So once again, apologies.

I understand the entitlement concerns, and you might be comforted to know that at least one law school dean has railed against the same people you're upset with on the grounds that students shouldn't be entitled to jobs (see here: http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2010/ ... _educ.html). But the issue isn't whether law students deserve jobs or have a right to be upset when they come up short; it's whether they deserve to know what the job market looks like before they decide to enroll, and whether they have a right to be upset when the law school misled them into taking on all that debt. In the same op ed Dean Farmer also argued that a JD gives people freedom, which follows from his entitlement argument. But fooling people into taking on non-dischargeable debt by portraying the job market as viable hardly sounds like freedom.

Look at how Farmer's school (Rutgers-Newark) portrays the job stats (see here: --LinkRemoved--). They advertise an average starting salary of $128,000 for the 42.7% of employed 2009 grads who went into private practice, and an even higher average ($146,000) for the 16.8% going into Business/Industry. Doing some very rough math and discounting to count unemployed grads (which the school conveniently left out), this means that slightly more than half the class (55%) apparently made about $135,000 on average. This is pretty amazing for a regional law school, even back in 2009 when hiring was at its peak. The introduction also states "By February 2010, 241 of the 243 members of the Class of 2009 reported their employment status to the Office of Career Services." So the data presumably comes from all but 2 graduates, meaning these averages must be real, right? Unfortunately for Farmer and others defending schools on the grounds that they are educating people to enter the most honorable of all professions, schools left to themselves are pulling all sorts of tactics to mislead you.

It is reasonable for prospectives to assume, based on the way Rutgers-Newark presents its data, that "employment status" must include starting salaries. The only way it doesn't become reasonable is if prospectives suspect that law schools can actually lie about job stats, or that schools can label a salary as average when it actually only represents a small percentage of the graduates in a particular sector. Because Rutgers-Newark conveniently decided to hide the fact that not everyone reported salaries along with employment status, many graduates will have no idea that these salaries are not true averages. You have to wait until the ABA and USNews make that data public in a few months if you want a better idea of how many 09 grads are represented by the salary data.

In the meantime, you can go back and check out the 08 data here --LinkRemoved--. Just 71% of private sector grads reported salaries that year, while just 30.5% of the class actually made $95K or higher. This is a lot different than the what the school is advertising on its website. You could also surmise that the percentages for '10 grads were perhaps half what they were back in '08, which is reasonable for a risk-averse applicant absent better information from the school. Now we begin to see some real disparities between the likely job outcomes and what the school advertises. Thinking that less than 15% of grads are able to make 95K or better is far more discouraging than thinking that half the class makes $125K on average, at least for non-scholarship applicants weighing the expected debt burden they will likely face.

If the data represented by the law schools were a fair interpretation of the job market back n 2009, then I could see you arguing "buyer beware." People can and should be researching the job market at large to adjust these figures down and get a more realistic picture of what they are likely to face in terms of risk. But while you may not like the fact that recent JD grads are angry and claiming they were lied to by their alma maters, they are at least trying to issue warnings that schools otherwise refuse to do. When the Dean of Rutgers-Newark permits his admissions team to significantly overstate the value of the school and at the same time claims that the people upset with their job prospects have noone to blame but themselves, it becomes apparent that his actions are harming the country's future lawyers rather than helping them. One of the biggest problems we've encountered in lobbying for reform is getting law school administrators to admit their failures and take action on their own to fix it. As a result, we're now working with the ABA and a few individual administrators who recognize what's going on and are committed to turning things around. In the meantime I strongly recommend anyone applying this cycle should contact the career services offices once you're accepted and request to see full employer lists for the Class of 2010. As I mentioned before, they'll have the data ready in another month or two.

emhellmer wrote:Also, these threads are started by unemployed JDs who are trying to scare kids away from law school because they don't like the competition. They don't care about you; they are trying to scare you away with horror stories because they want to limit the supply of lawyers so that they can continue to charge $500 to cut and paste information into a form document. Period.

Ignore graduates' worries about the job market, everyone. Information is only true if it comes from a source that cares deeply about your personal well-being. Since attorneys obviously do not, anything they say should not be taken seriously.

Nightrunner and Observationalist, you are right, and I apologize for blowing up. I had been reading through some other blogs and blew up about some of the things I was reading. I can see how law schools do mislead students into taking out an unmanageable amount of debt, and it is good that you are pointing out to kids (a number of whom haven't been out of school long enough to know better) that they need to think twice. NO ONE should go to graduate school banking on making $100K+ right after graduation. The law schools do encourage this misconception by throwing out deliberately manipulated employment stats. Middle class parents encourage law school for liberal arts grads who don't know what else they want to do (bad idea!!), and the whole thing just sucks.

Guys, NO degree is going to ensure a good job and lots of money, and anyone who tells you differently is full of sh*t. I know MBA, MD, and engineering grads who can't find jobs too. Most of them have to take low-paying grunt jobs and work their way up too, just like everyone else. If the economy booms in such a way that HUGE salaries shortly after graduation are the norm, please remember it is a boom, and not likely to last.

I come from a social work background, and know a lot of MSWs. Most of them seem to enter graduate school thinking "If I'm lucky, I can land a good job making $40K, work my way up to management making $50K, get connections, then go into private practice making up to $100K by the time I'm 40." Liberal arts Ph.Ds (many of whom won't even look at a school that doesn't offer a full fellowship) that I've known seem to think "If I'm lucky, I can land a tenure track position making $30K, make $50K after a few years (assuming I publish publish publish), and maybe, just maybe get a job at an elite school where I can make $80K after many years of hard work. Then I can write a famous book and make millions on the lecture circut. When I'm in my 60s." JDs do seem to face somewhat more lucrative options, but you are right in pointing out that they need to temper their expectations.

emhellmer wrote:I come from a social work background, and know a lot of MSWs. Most of them seem to enter graduate school thinking "If I'm lucky, I can land a good job making $40K, work my way up to management making $50K, get connections, then go into private practice making up to $100K by the time I'm 40." Liberal arts Ph.Ds (many of whom won't even look at a school that doesn't offer a full fellowship) that I've known seem to think "If I'm lucky, I can land a tenure track position making $30K, make $50K after a few years (assuming I publish publish publish), and maybe, just maybe get a job at an elite school where I can make $80K after many years of hard work. Then I can write a famous book and make millions on the lecture circut. When I'm in my 60s." JDs do seem to face somewhat more lucrative options, but you are right in pointing out that they need to temper their expectations.

This is all very true. It is worth noting that those people are expecting salaries that will enable paying off their graduate debt - sticker-price debt at most schools requires BIGMONEY jobs to pay down, unless you're banking on IBR. (In general, I don't trust that the Federal Government will be willing and able to pay down private debts for the next three decades, but that's just me.)

You also have to consider that people who get into many law schools were/would be successful in their best alternative career as well making 60K a year after dropping 150K for school not a good deal at all. It is also worth noting that most of the advice is tempered with "unless you really want to be a lawyer". Most academics really love their field and most social workers are motivated by more than just money. Many more people are drawn to law hoping for a big salary and not much else and they are the ones that should be dissuaded.

Even the economy recovers if you aren't going to a T18 school you probably won't make enough money to pay your loans back.

While the "midlaw is a myth" mantra is mostly true in primary markets, in secondary markets this simply is not true. The majority of firms that interview at UF can be classified as "midlaw" (i.e. Carlton Fields, Bilzin Sumburg, Gray Robinson, Rogers Towers [although they did not interview this year, but normally do], Gunster, Smith Hulsey Busey, and Phelps Dunbar to name a few). I am sure this is true of many other secondary markets as well. While I am not saying this guarantees anything (said firms probably accounted for about 7-8 people being employed at my school), they do exist.

emhellmer wrote:I come from a social work background, and know a lot of MSWs. Most of them seem to enter graduate school thinking "If I'm lucky, I can land a good job making $40K, work my way up to management making $50K, get connections, then go into private practice making up to $100K by the time I'm 40." Liberal arts Ph.Ds (many of whom won't even look at a school that doesn't offer a full fellowship) that I've known seem to think "If I'm lucky, I can land a tenure track position making $30K, make $50K after a few years (assuming I publish publish publish), and maybe, just maybe get a job at an elite school where I can make $80K after many years of hard work. Then I can write a famous book and make millions on the lecture circut. When I'm in my 60s." JDs do seem to face somewhat more lucrative options, but you are right in pointing out that they need to temper their expectations.

This is all very true. It is worth noting that those people are expecting salaries that will enable paying off their graduate debt - sticker-price debt at most schools requires BIGMONEY jobs to pay down, unless you're banking on IBR. (In general, I don't trust that the Federal Government will be willing and able to pay down private debts for the next three decades, but that's just me.)

As someone who is currently enrolled in IBR, I really hope you're wrong... my monthly payments will start out at $0 because my debt/income ratio is so high, and adjusting for slight salary increases means I will likely only have to pay back a fraction of my LS debt over the next 10 years. After that the outstanding balance on my federal direct loan should be forgiven through the public interest program of IBR, at which point I will have 10 years of hopefully rewarding work experience to take with me into the next 30-40 years of debt-free, hopefully rewarding work. Or so one hopes.

Nightrunner wrote:This is all very true. It is worth noting that those people are expecting salaries that will enable paying off their graduate debt - sticker-price debt at most schools requires BIGMONEY jobs to pay down, unless you're banking on IBR. (In general, I don't trust that the Federal Government will be willing and able to pay down private debts for the next three decades, but that's just me.)

You seriously expect the decision makers to screw the one group of people who holds most of the political capital in our generation???

Nightrunner wrote:This is all very true. It is worth noting that those people are expecting salaries that will enable paying off their graduate debt - sticker-price debt at most schools requires BIGMONEY jobs to pay down, unless you're banking on IBR. (In general, I don't trust that the Federal Government will be willing and able to pay down private debts for the next three decades, but that's just me.)

You seriously expect the decision makers to screw the one group of people who holds most of the political capital in our generation???

Nightrunner wrote:I'm not expecting them to screw IBR; I'm saying I am not sure the federal financial situation will definitely allow them to keep IBR, and I lack sufficient confidence to bet $200K on that possibility.

I think most of us who will be depending on IBR will be in just the perfect positions to work to keep that going. There are other programs to be trimmed/cut/modified that impact people with less voice.

Aqualibrium wrote:How is making someone pay their own loans considered screwing them?

Because many people are entering into the debt obligations counting on IBR being around.

There is a perfect precedent: every one who signed a ARM were told that the payments had a chance of going up, they were just "misled" into thinking they won't.

I am not talking about right or wrong, should or should not. I am simply commenting on the feasibility of pissing off (rightfully or not) the middle/upper middle class (who will be politically connected by then).

Nightrunner wrote:That absolutely could be. It would (if we're playing hypothetical here) depend on when a financial crisis arose in the federal budget. 2021? Then there are probably plenty of powerful IBR people. 2013? Probably not.

In 2013, most people counting on IBR will lack the capital necessary to influence local school board races.

I don't think the deficit/national debt will be at that level yet - we can still borrow for maybe another 5-10 years? If impending financial doom can prompt fed. to overcome the political powerful and what benefit them, then social security reform should have been #1 on the agenda for the past decade. People who are powerful don't need SS/pension

You also have to consider that people who get into many law schools were/would be successful in their best alternative career as well making 60K a year after dropping 150K for school not a good deal at all. It is also worth noting that most of the advice is tempered with "unless you really want to be a lawyer". Most academics really love their field and most social workers are motivated by more than just money. Many more people are drawn to law hoping for a big salary and not much else and they are the ones that should be dissuaded.

Absolutely. If you just want to make money, be an electrician. The amount of required education is comparatively minimal and cheap, and most electricians make good money right away. Some go into business for themselves and make six figures; some have expanded and are millionares. A real estate liscense is comparatively cheap, and there are realtors who make millions off of ONE sale. Most general contractors make three times what I do, and some of them don't have a GED. My uncle worked as a roofer after high school, started his own business, expanded it into a remodeling business, started buying run-down properties and fixing them, and he's now as rich as some of the senior biglaw partners I know.

All of these success stories involve people who A) provided a service that people are willing to pay for, B) spent time in the trenches doing undesirable work for minimal pay, and C) hustled like crazy to build up a network and a reputation. Every member of the bar meets the requirements for A, and most people who need a lawyer are willing to pay big bucks for a good one. But if you think that you are going to get rich without completing parts B and C, you are in for a very rude awakening, and banking on the biglaw jobs was probably always a bad idea. Anyone going to law school should have some other reason for wanting to study the law than just getting rich, because your time and money would have been much better spent hustling real estate until you were finally able to get $50,000,000 listings. So yeah, it has a poor rate of return, as do most college degrees. I guess I'm just a little shocked to be hearing people discuss this as if it were headline news. The law schools are partly to blame, but I also think some of the students (and their parents) should have done a more careful evaluation of their options from the outset.

emhellmer wrote:A real estate liscense is comparatively cheap, and there are realtors who make millions off of ONE sale.

Standard Realtor cut is around 6% (split if a buyer's agent). So the people you are talking about are selling ~$16m homes...

There are realtors who sell $16 million homes. However, I doubt most realtors expect to make it that big, at least not right away. It would certainly be a foolish expectation. Worth shooting for if you have a knack for sales and don't mind getting a real estate license, no? I'm just saying, kids who go into $200,000 worth of law-school debt may hoping to get rich have far better options.

emhellmer wrote:There are realtors who sell $16 million homes. However, I doubt most realtors expect to make it that big, at least not right away. It would certainly be a foolish expectation. Worth shooting for if you have a knack for sales and don't mind getting a real estate license, no? I'm just saying, kids who go into $200,000 worth of law-school debt may hoping to get rich have far better options.

This makes no sense at all.

Anybody who is just "hoping to get rich" won't ever get there because they won't have the drive to actually attain it unless you marry somebody for money.

Of course there are easier/harder ways to make money. That much is fucking obvious.